Another insane person with aa assault weapon.

[Phantasmal]

Beto is an idiot. He lost to Ted f'ing Cruz. How much of a horrible politician do you have to be to do that?

The majority of Texans don’t care about the quality of the candidates, they re-elected Patrick, Cruz and Abbott. All crooks.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Ok, so using how you define absolute, we can make progress, how do we decide the standard for the due process? Is there somewhere short of incarceration where due process can result in restriction on gun ownership, if not why?

What constitutionally justifies the incarceration of or removal of rights of citizens? Is it whatever the government says? Could the government say, for example, if you are convicted of jaywalking you can no longer own a firearm? Basically, Where is the line on when due process can and cannot lead to firearm restrictions?

this why we have it as absolute, so fascists can't slow walk everyone's rights away, with their dumb "points" and "concerns".

[LurchAddams]

Trump and Santos may be facing severe legal problems...which saying stupid shit often does. Beto keeps running for different offices in Texas and keeps losing because of his stupid shit.

I'm no fan of Beto. If it were not for the Dems putting him up for gov last cycle we might have had a Dem governor in TX now. Especially after the stupid and ugly shit Abbot does.

[LurchAddams]

The majority of Texans don’t care about the quality of the candidates, they re-elected Patrick, Cruz and Abbott. All crooks.

Yep, Beto ran against Abbot as well. And I don't think Cruz won by a landslide Any other Dem with good political instincts would have beat either MAGA.

[Doc Dutch]

I guess you missed his addressing the subjects many times on the campaign trail.

https://betoorourke.com/issue/promote-gun-safety/

https://www.mentalhealthforus.net/ca.../beto-orourke/

That's because mental health is an afterthought, the lesser priority. The first link doesn't even mention mental health but has a long laundry list of banning things.

The second link was an interview by a mental health group, not Beto's staff or election page: https://www.mentalhealthforus.net/about/platform/

One in 5 American adults – tens of millions of people – will experience mental illness or addiction in any given year. However, the current system is not meeting the needs of millions of Americans.


We envision a future in which:

• mental health and addiction — including suicide and overdose prevention — are at the forefront of all policy conversations and improvement is prioritized at federal, state, and community levels;
• comprehensive, holistic approaches to mental health are integrated into physical health care; and
• our currently struggling systems are reformed to effectively care for and support the mental health of all Americans.

My main point being that Democrats seek to ban guns first and treat mental health second...if at all.

[Doc Dutch]

I'm no fan of Beto. If it were not for the Dems putting him up for gov last cycle we might have had a Dem governor in TX now. Especially after the stupid and ugly shit Abbot does.

Agreed. If the Democrats ran better, saner candidates, they might win more elections.

[Phantasmal]

Yep, Beto ran against Abbot as well. And I don't think Cruz won by a landslide Any other Dem with good political instincts would have beat either MAGA.

Nope, Texas is still red, it won’t happen for another two election cycles if then.

[Phantasmal]

Agreed. If the Democrats ran better, saner candidates, they might win more elections.

Lol, you being a long term Texan knows that is not true.

[Phantasmal]

That's because mental health is an afterthought, the lesser priority. The first link doesn't even mention mental health but has a long laundry list of banning things.

The second link was an interview by a mental health group, not Beto's staff or election page: https://www.mentalhealthforus.net/about/platform/


My main point being that Democrats seek to ban guns first and treat mental health second...if at all.

No, Democrats know we need both, you have an extreme bias against Democrats, so you misrepresent their positions.

[SmarterthanYou]

Ok, so using how you define absolute, we can make progress, how do we decide the standard for the due process? Is there somewhere short of incarceration where due process can result in restriction on gun ownership, if not why?

The standard for due process is already there. Trial, conviction, and sentencing. One of the things I've been consistent in saying here is that if a person can't be trusted with a weapon, they can't be trusted in public.

What constitutionally justifies the incarceration of or removal of rights of citizens? Is it whatever the government says? Could the government say, for example, if you are convicted of jaywalking you can no longer own a firearm? Basically, Where is the line on when due process can and cannot lead to firearm restrictions?

The Government cannot say such things. WE THE PEOPLE make those determinations. IF, a big IF, our representatives in the house/senate decide that jaywalking is a felony offense worthy of removing rights, we the people have a simple resolution to that which is jury nullification.

Now, one of the things that is important to remember.........IF a citizen serves his sentenced and allotted time FULLY, they should have ALL rights restored to them upon release. No permanent removal of rights.

[SmarterthanYou]

The majority of Texans don’t care about the quality of the candidates, they re-elected Patrick, Cruz and Abbott. All crooks.

in a lot of respects, you are correct. MOST Texans don't give a damn about candidates except for the letter after their name denoting party. But Beto deserved to lose as he was way worse than Cruz

[Doc Dutch]

Nope, Texas is still red, it won’t happen for another two election cycles if then.

Republican redistricting helps keep it red, but the reality is that most Texans aren't Republicans: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion...y-affiliation/
39% Republican
21% No Lean
40% Democrat

When a large group of voters feel neither party represents their best interests, what should their strategy be on election day?

[Jarod]

this why we have it as absolute, so fascists can't slow walk everyone's rights away, with their dumb "points" and "concerns".

But there are situations where it is okay, right?

[Jarod]

The standard for due process is already there. Trial, conviction, and sentencing. One of the things I've been consistent in saying here is that if a person can't be trusted with a weapon, they can't be trusted in public.

The Government cannot say such things. WE THE PEOPLE make those determinations. IF, a big IF, our representatives in the house/senate decide that jaywalking is a felony offense worthy of removing rights, we the people have a simple resolution to that which is jury nullification.

Now, one of the things that is important to remember.........IF a citizen serves his sentenced and allotted time FULLY, they should have ALL rights restored to them upon release. No permanent removal of rights.

Ok, so I understand, IF the government makes ANYTHING the Supreme Court allows a felony and a jury convicts, that is one way of limiting gun ownership.

So, for example those who attacked the Capital on 1/6 AND have been convicted of seditions Conspiracy (a felony) can have their gun ownership removed? Right?
That takes care of criminal cases.

What about mental incapacitation? How does that work? If a judge declares someone mentally incompetent, than can restrict gun ownership?

[Saint Guinefort]

Comparing small arms to nukes is silly.

It's actually not a bad argument. Sure it can be sort of an argumentum ad absurdum, but if one is debating the "absolute" nature of any right often times this is an effective argument. It forces the side that espouses an unfettered right to accept that limits already exist and limits that we should all be quite happy are there.

Nobody gives a shit about the mentally ill

Indeed. The NRA's talking point about the need for better mental healthcare is actually just a disingenuous attempt to shift focus away from guns. They aren't actually interested in expanding mental healthcare. If they were they would be willing to accept a surcharge on all ammunition and gun purchases that goes to a fund for expanded mental healthcare.

or the 45,000 suicides in America every year...well, except for the half that use firearms. The Democrats love to use those numbers to puff up their "gun violence" stats.

The suicide number is scary. A lot of gun advocates want to ignore that but guns are a quantum step forward with regards to horrific outcomes. Not all suicide attempts need to be successful, but guns definitely bias that outcome. And studies continually show the presence of guns in a home correlates with higher rates of suicide. Likely it is because of the efficacy.

That should be sufficient to keep suicides as a legitimate measure of the danger of guns.